<HTML>Dear Shalom and Lookjed readers,
I feel compelled to write a clarification of my original query regarding
effective teaching of Maharal. First, because I am still confused about a
number of methodological issues in reading and teaching Maharal. Second,
because a number of people understood, I think wrongly, that my problem
stemmed from simple ignorance. I have no business teaching that which I
have not learned and do not understand, they claimed.
The issue is not simply one of lack of knowledge. First, on a personal
note, I am not the most knowledgeable person, by far, but I have studied
much of the medieval tradition of Jewish thought, and I did a lot of
preparation for this course, by reading both primary and secondary
sources. Beyond that, however, I think the problem is inherent, at some
level, in Maharal's style and choice of language. Maharal uses many of
the terms that are common in the medieval philosophical tradition. But,
he uses them differently, and defines them differently, than his
predecessors. His relationship with kabbalah seems to be in the opposite
direction. He retains some (how much?) of the kabbalistic content, but
rarely uses its language very explicitly. Unfortunately, he tends to
define his terms by reference to other terms, which he also doesn't
define, at least not in the immediate context. At other times, his
definitions of terms are subtly different in different places. If there
are precise definitions of the terms, Maharal apparently does not consider
it a top priority to get that across to the reader. He does not write in
a "user friendly" fashion. His circular writing style, and consistent
attempts to connect and equate all kinds of terms, make it harder on the
reader. To simply say that misunderstanding and lack of clarity are only
the readers ignorance does not do justice to Maharal's style. There might
be more organized and sharp definitions scattered here and there in
Maharal's writings, but how do I find them, and are they consistent. If
there are not such definitions, than why does Maharal write that way? Is
it deliberate? What does he gain by doing so? =20
Furthermore, to the extent that Maharal's definitions are clear, it still
raises pedagogic problems. What is the most effective way of teaching
this kind of material? How do we (I) deal with the ambiguities that are
built into the system and writing style? How do we (I) encourage students
frustrated with the style? =20
I hope that this clarifies the issues that I raised, and I hope that it
helps clear my good (I hope) name.
Yoel Finkelman</HTML>
